GT Institute Review Committee

Meeting Minutes, March 28, 2002

College of Sciences Conference Room, Tech Tower

 

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. Members present included Jim McClellan, Joe Hughes (liaison from the UCC), Steve Usselman, Paul Wine, John McIntyre, Andy Peterson, Joseph Hoey, Farrokh Mistree, Ron Arkin, and Russell Gentry.

 

A. Minutes

The February 14, 2002, minutes were reviewed. A correction to the list of members present at the meeting should exclude Paul Wine and Joe Hughes, who were not present at that meeting. Ron moved to accept minutes with corrections. Motion seconded by Paul.

 

B. Exit Interviews

 

1. Russell stepped in for Joseph for the HTS External Committee Exit interview. Russell said that the committee was excited about the review. However, they did not have strict guidelines to follow.

 

2. Paul said that the Psychology External Review Board did not have guidelines either. They commented on the research aspect but did not do as good a job on the vision aspect.

 

3. Joseph noted that non-accredited visits have different jobs than accredited visits. Programs that have accredited visits will have the advantage of having data on hand for reviewers. Some of the programs with upcoming accredited reviews include the following:

·         SYSE is coming up

·         Industrial Design has been continued until next year

·         ISYE—the accredited board will be here next October

·         ECE— has the undergraduate data on hand, so the review will be less time intensive

 

4. External Reviewer Letter

Steve developed a letter to be given to the External Review Boards for consideration by the members. Some of the comments about the letter and the need for such letter include the following:

a. Steve asked if the letter should be decentralized.

b. Joe asked if the letter would not be decentralized, could all of the chairs remember to say all that needs to be said.

c. Andy said that the letter could be given as an example to be used by the chairs.

d. Ron mentioned that Psychology would have like to have known that they would be included in the exit interview.

e. Russell said that HTS was surprised to learn that their report is due by April 12.

f. Joseph said that he received the College of Computing’s report. He said that he had asked everyone to forward their reports to him and to the liaison. SYSE is meeting the last week of April.

 

5. Guidelines for External Review Teams

Joseph then brought everyone’s attention to the Guidelines for External Review Teams and went over the

headings. He asked the members to send him their comments for changes to the document. Discussion

strongly recommended using some of ABET’s guidelines for a template example, which can be located on its

web site. After the template is revised, Russell suggested that it be sent to HTS (upon Willie Pearson’s

approval). It will also be forwarded to ISYE. Comments about the document during this meeting included the

following:

a. General comments.

 1. Joseph mentioned that page 4 of the guidelines tells the External Review Teams how to write a

report.

 2. Ron said that the guidelines should include suggested page counts.

 3. Farrokh said that the review teams should be told what the total length of the report is expected. He

  also thought that two weeks for conducting the review was ridiculous with no or little pay.

 4. Andy and Farrokh thought that a template would be useful.

 5. Joe suggested adding some open-ended questions along with the template.

 6. Ron said that the template could be optional.

 7. Steve said that some of the questions could be onerous. The reviewers could place a checkmark next

to a weakness, then be asked to explain it. Otherwise, no explanation would be needed.

 8. Joe suggested that they look at the ABET template. Ask if the mission statement is appropriate.

 9. Ron suggested the review teams be asked to comment on the concerns—weaknesses, but that it is

important for departments to hear what they are doing positively. Highlight strengths and what

distinguishes units.

10. Joe said that ABET does ask for a summary of program strengths in its report’s first statement.

11. Joseph said that it would be useful to have an external look at the strategic areas of the program.

12. Russell said that a template would have been useful for the HTS external team. For example, when he asked them about general education in the exit interview, they paused and didn’t go into it much.

13. Farrokh suggested that a clear mindset statement be put at the top of the document to set the tone of

  the document. Tie it in to strategic planning. Show innovation, vibrancy, and health of enterprise.

a. Ron said that it should show that we don’t just want nitpicking.

b. Joe added that the template should ask for strengths, weaknesses, and strategic direction.

  b. Detailed comments.

 1. “F. Research Program”—Joe said that “and Scholarly Endeavors” should be added since a

program might not be involved in conducting research.

·       Farrokh said that scholarly should be placed first.

 2. “A. General Questions #1”—Ron suggested it be changed to substantive and forthright.

 3. “I. General Education Core”—Joe suggested that #2 be added: “Does it appear that the program

graduates, if applicable, are achieving _______ effectiveness”?

 4. “F. ...levels of impact”—Steve asked what levels of impact means. Suggestions included:

·       the effect on the academic enterprise

·       scholarly, economic

·      what are the internal and external impacts

 5. Farrokh said that missing from the template but should be included are the following:

a. The happy quotient­—morale. How happy is everyone about coming to work? Sometimes it is

forgotten that students and staff are part of this.

b. What processes don’t make sense?

c. Leadership

 6. Joe said that another heading, Environment, could be added, and the three items addressed under that

heading:

a. Morale

b. Effectiveness of program leadership

c. Effectiveness of institutional leadership

 

C. April 15 Meeting

Members questioned what the meeting should include. After discussion, they were in agreement that the  presenters should cover the questions that they were asked to comment on when their presentations were scheduled.

·         How you did your program reviews—the process?

·         What are the major findings?

·         What are your comments on the process?

 

The members also decided that the format would remain as presentation/discussion rather than a panel

discussion. The time allowed will remain 35 minutes for each presenter with a 20-minute presentation and 15-

minute discussion period. The schedule should be moved to during lunch and afternoon. One-half hour will be left at the end for this committee to debrief. A check with presenters should be done to have equipment available (computer projector) for the presentations.

 

Two presenters had prior commitments on April 15 and were scheduled for separate meetings.

 

·         Randy Engle, representing the Psychology program review, will meet with Joseph Hoey and Paul Wine on Tuesday, April 2, from 2:00–3:00 p.m. (Note: At the time these minutes were prepared, the date and time of the meeting changed to Monday, April 1, from 10:30–11:30 a.m.)

·         Willie Pearson, representing the HTS program review, will meet with Joseph Hoey and Russell Gentry at a time to be scheduled later. (Note: At the time these minutes were prepared, the date and time of the meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, from 1:00–2:00 p.m.)

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes prepared by Sue Woolard, 03/29/2002.